[EM] Majority criteria

With RV, not only does a majority always have the power to make their unique favorite win, but they always have the power to do so without reversing any preferences. In fact, more generally, if a majority prefer X to Y, then they have a way of voting that ensures that Y won't win, without an

[EM] Rob: SFC and your 2nd statement

Rob-- You wrote: [2nd statement] "SFC requires that the majority of voters who prefer the Condorcet candidate to another particular candidate vote sincerely (neither falsify nor truncate their preferences), and it also requires that no other voter falsifies preferences" If the second stateme

[EM] majority winner and range & condorcet methods

>robla: Incidentally, Range voting wouldn't have prevented slavery. Black suffrage was a pretty important prerequisite which didn't exist back then. Also, I don't think that a bunch of people who were willing to secede from the union and fight a war on their own soil would express a mild preferen

[EM] majority criterion

>robla: I've seen a lot of different definitions of the "majority criterion", but for purposes of this email, I'll describe a minimal version: "If a strict majority of the voters rank a particular alternative as their unique first choice, then the voting method must select that alternative as a uni

Re: [EM] sincerity in range votes / and fantasies

On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 16:26 -0400, Warren Smith wrote: > I also point out that Robla on a previous occasion agreed that RV was a good > system > and, if I recall correctly said he would be "dancing in the streets" were it > enacted. However, yesterday he said he could "never support it" > in vi

[EM] sincerity in range votes / and fantasies

>Yves in reply to wds's criticism of Robla's "range killing" example: 1- Sincerity doesn't exist in politic. As the vote itself, everything is always strategic. The concept of democracy is to give the same chances to all individuals to influence a collective decision. --wds response: first of al

[EM] range voting "passing constitutional muster" / Range's "glaring defect"

An analysis of the constitutional question is already available within the CRV web site http://math.temple.edu/~wds/crv/ConstVt.html Also, re Robla's ludicrous "range killing example" illustrating range's "glaring defect", let me say this. You are perfectly free in the range system to cas